Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The petitioner is a student of respondent No. 1 and he has come to this Court for asking him to repeat in the third year Classes when he could not appear in the 2nd Semester examination of the third year course due to his ailment. He was ailing admittedly for about three months. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner for allowing him to attend IVth year Class and to appear in the Next Semester examination to clear his IInd Semester of third year Class was rejected by order dated 19.8.1994 illegally without giving proper consideration to his ailment. 3. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has given much stress on Rule-B of the Page-7 of Regulation and Syllabus of the respondent, wherein there was scope for allowing on medical ground the prayer of the petitioner. 4. In the counter-affidavit, the contention of the petitioner has been denied and stated that the prayer of the petitioner could not be acceded to as the petitioner could not acquire sufficient proficiency for going to IVth year Classes. It has further been stated that the petitioner has not come up with clean hands. It is found that the petitioner passed all the Semester (previous Semester) examination in supplementary examinations and even he had failed in one subject in the 1st Semester of the third year Class which he was to clear in the IInd Semester. He had also no sufficient percentage and he had not appeared in Summer Training, Vocational training and tutorials and as such, he was asked to repeat in the third year Classes with the next batch. It has been contended by Mr. Sinha that by Annexure-A, the petitioner was allowed to sit for the IInd Semester Examination and as such it cannot be stated that he did not acquire sufficient proficiency in the third year Class but I find that the Annexure-A has been misread. It is no where there that the petitioner was allowed to appear rather it was only mentioned that he was considered failed to the IInd Semester because of the absence. By Annexure-B also, it seems that the petitioner did not pray for allowing him to join in the IVth year Classes rather he only needed permission of joining the course 5. By Annexure-B also, it seems that the petitioner did not pray for allowing him to join in the IVth year Classes rather he only needed permission of joining the course 5. There cannot be any right of the petitioner of getting his prayer admitted through a writ petition against the educational Institute, when no right is found to be infringed by any arbitrary action. It is the authority of the Institution, who should consider as to the proficiency and standard of its students. The petitioner is undergoing course in a technical education and not in general line and as such training, tutorials, seasonal works have got much value in attaining proficiency and in such circumstances, three months absence may be fatal to acquire high proficiency. 6. From the facts above, I do not find any scope to entertain the petition of the petitioner and hence the same is rejected. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Any observation made above may not be considered as against the petitioner.